In a regular first appeal against a decree for ejectment, the High Court upheld the trial court's findings regarding landlord-tenant relationship and proper defendant status, affirming the suit decree.
One year extension to vacate premises; continuous rent payment; undertaking on finality of judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.627/2012
BETWEEN:
SRI SRINIVASA, S/O.LATE.SHANBUDASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, “HOTEL RAJPRAKASH”, NO.245, SUBEDAR CHARTRAM ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 009.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI T.MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
2
NAGAPPA BLOCK, BANGALORE- 560 021.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR LAW & OPTIONS)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.01.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.758/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 758/2006. The
suit in question was filed by the plaintiff therein seeking for a judgment and decree of ejectment against the defendant. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions has decreed the suit by its judgment dated 13.01.2012.
3
them had examined the 3rd plaintiff as PW-1 and the documents at Exhs.P1 to P10 were marked, the Power of Attorney holder of defendant examined himself as DW-1 and a witness was examined as DW-2 and marked the documents at Exhs.D1 to D9. In the light of the said materials which were available before the trial Court, the trial Court has considered all the contentions i.e, with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant, whether the plaintiff is the owner
4
of the property and also the fact as to whether the appropriate defendant had been impleaded. A perusal of the judgment would indicate that the trial Court after referring to the documents available on record more particularly the document at Ex.P1, the sale deed by which the plaintiff has purchased the property and the Khatha which was changed to their name has arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff is the owner of the property.
5
conclusion that the suit is to be decreed. In that regard, the conclusion reached by the trial Court in any event cannot be faulted in as much as the same is based on the evidence which is available on record and on reappreciation of this Court such conclusion is to be affirmed since a different view is not possible.
appellant/defendant would submit that the defendant would accept the findings rendered by the trial Court as well as the affirmation of the same by this Court and as such reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premises. Hence, during the course of hearing I enquired from the learned counsel for the Caveator with regard to the time that could be granted to the appellant. The learned counsel for the Caveator would state that his client is ready to grant a maximum period of six months. The learned counsel for the appellant would however seek for 1½ years time to vacate the premises.
6
in the main building and since it is not in dispute that the other tenants have already vacated the premises, the time as sought for by the appellant would not be just and fair as the plaintiff/respondent would be prevented from using the same for constructing a suitable building. However, this Court keeping in view the fact that the defendant was in occupation of the premises for quite some time and they would have made alternative arrangements suggested that the parties agree on the time for a period of one year from this day. The learned counsel for the defendant/appellant would consent to the same as he has instructions in this regard from the defendant/appellant.
from this day to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent subject to the condition that the appellant shall file an affidavit undertaking before this Court within three weeks from this day undertaking therein that they have agreed that the judgment of the trial Court affirmed by this Court has attained finality and in that context they would vacate the premises within one year from this day. During the said period of one year, they shall
7
continue to pay the rent regularly without any default. Even if there is default for one month, the benefit of the time granted herein would not enure to the appellant and they would be liable to be evicted forthwith. It is also made clear that at the end of one year from today, the appellant shall voluntarily vacate and hand over vacant possession, failing which the respondents/plaintiffs are not only entitled to execute the decree for eviction but it is also made clear that the appellant will have to face contempt proceedings for violating the undertaking given to this Court.
Sd/JUDGE
ST
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the decree for ejectment based on landlord-tenant relationship ought to be allowed.
Whether a reasonable time can be granted to the appellant to vacate the premises pending execution.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Srinivasa
Sri Venugopal Krishna
Sri N. Jagannath
Dr. N. Satyanarayana
A S Bopanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
